MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Create a list of official hashtags: passed)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. '''Signing with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki> is not allowed''' due to technical issues.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==Writing guidelines==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].  Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights).  If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
''None at the moment.''


__TOC__
==New features==
 
''None at the moment.''
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
 
==New Features==
''None at the Moment''


==Removals==
==Removals==
''None at the moment.
''None at the moment.''


==Splits & Merges==
==Changes==
===''Smash Bros.'' Moves===
===Standardize the coverage of elements from guest appearance titles===
In light of recent applications of our [[MarioWiki:Importance Policy|importance policy]], many users would like to see minor ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' subjects merged.  One such suggestion has been to merge the special moves with the characters’ pages.  For example, [[Hand Grenade]], [[Remote Controlled Missile]], [[Cypher]], [[C4]], and [[Grenade Launcher]] would be merged with [[Solid Snake]].
As brought up by an earlier cancelled proposal, the current coverage of ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is very inconsistent, and the worst offender is [[Bombite]]. Unlike Spiked Thwomp, Stone Elevator or Mega Thwomp, it has no direct or implied connection to the ''Mario'' franchise, but has an article anyway, solely based on its appearance.  


This merge would decrease the emphasis placed '''Smash Bros.''' while still retaining all ''Super Smash Bros.'' content. If this proposal passes, the following assurances are granted (1) ALL content from a special move page must be transferred to its respective character page BEFORE the special move page is blanked. This includes pictures. (2) ALL special move pages affected will become redirects to their appropriate section in their characters' articles. In other words, you will still be able to easily look up each special move.  It will simply no longer have its own page. (3) The [[Super Smash Bros. Special Moves|''Super Smash Bros.'' Special Moves]] page will still be in place.
[[MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest_appearances]] permits giving individual articles for subjects ''"unique to the [guest appearance] game while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise"''. I propose to more clearly define on [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] what elements from guest appearance titles should be given their own pages:
#The subject is clearly derived from or based on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, as confirmed by Nintendo. (''Nintendo Land'' minigames, Thwomp types exclusive to ''The Legend of Zelda'', etc.)
#The subject is distinct enough to justify its own article. (Cannot be merged with an existing page. BowWows or Cheep-Sheeps don't get individual articles because they're not distinct enough from their Mario counterparts)
#Subjects exclusive to ''Mario''-themed stages or minigames ([[Chili plate]], [[Blue check mark]], etc. Monita still doesn't get her own page, despite her role in the [[Luigi's Ghost Mansion]] minigame)
#If the subject derived from the ''Mario'' franchise appears in a Nintendo-published or endorsed media that isn't considered guest appearance, a proposal is required before creating a page. (If Nintendo ever releases a game with a unique ''Mario'' subject that can't otherwise be considered a guest appearance title, wiki editors have an option to consider if it's worth covering anyway)


If you would like an example of how this would look, please see [[User:Stumpers/Test|here]].  Please note how the image templates and stub templates carried over.  Trophy information when applicable has now been moved down to the larger trophy information section.  The only real change is that images have been made smaller.  For the purpose of example, I have including the SSB Moves template at the bottom of the section.  Unless people really want it to be there, when/if I merge the moves, I will not be including the template.  Let me know.
This is where Bombite comes into play:


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br>
Option 1: Similar appearance isn't enough to justify creating a new article. This option would result in the deletion of [[Bombite]], its contents will be merged with the ''Zelda'' section of Bob-omb's article
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, October 2, 2008


====Support====
Option 2: Similar appearance is a good justification for creating a new article for a distinct enemy. Bombite's page remains
#{{User|Stumpers}} - Per myself above.  This merge will retain all information about the Smash Bros. series, but it will present it in a way that will not give unequal attention to the ''Smash Bros.'' series over other cross-overs.  We need to either follow the importance policy by measures such as the one described in the proposal or we need to modify the importance policy.
#{{User|Uniju :D}} - I completely agree with Stumpers.
#{{User|R.O.B 128}} - You have my full support on this incentive. It's about time this happened.
#[[User: Booster|Booster]] - I'm all for this. From what I gather, moves pertaining to Mario characters will be merged as well, yes?
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - This is a great idea. The wiki needs a little less focus on the SSB series, and some more on the Mario series; I don't want anything to drastic to be changed, so this seems like just the right way to do things.
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per all.
#{{User|Cobold}} - I suggested this ages ago. I didn't want to create a proposal after the debate didn't work out. This step should be all right to put some weight onto the Importance Policy, it was only a theory before.
#{{User|tanokki}} -I didn't like this initially but when I looked a stumpers test page It made sense.Per all.


====Oppose====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Axis}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Comment====
====Option 1====
Just a question to those responsible for the random quote generator: many Final Smash articles include quotes from Masahiro Sakurai.  Will we need to remove these in the event that the character page has a quote at the top?  Alternatively, we could merge quotes into the actual text, like so: In his Super Smash Bros. Dojo! entry for Peach Blossom, Masahiro comments, "[insert quote here]." {{User|Stumpers}}
#{{User|Axis}} Per proposal
#{{User|Hewer}} Connecting Bombite to Bob-omb does feel like a stretch, so yeah it doesn't need an article.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} As I already stated [[Talk:Bombite#Falls within the scope our coverage?|here]], Bombite being covered here with its own article is really strange, even if it does resemble Bob-omb, and the game it's from references Mario a lot. Rest of the proposed guidelines also check out, per all.
#{{User|7feetunder}} I really have no idea why Bombites even exist when they could've just put Bob-ombs in ''Link's Awakening''. Regardless, per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.


Booster: It does also apply to Mario characters. {{User|Stumpers}} 23:19, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
====Option 2====
:About your first comment, you could just use {{tem|LLquote}} {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 23:41, 25 September 2008 (EDT)


Well, this what I've actually wanted (and some others) and this will definately prevent vandalism. Srsly, we would have to patrol 195 articles if there isn't a merge. Plus, I think somebody went a little too far when they put that Diddy Kong can perform "Diddycide". That's a technique that is only meant to be on Smash Wiki. Are you going to merge the moves for the Mario series characters too, Stumpers? {{User|R.O.B 128}}
====Oppose====
:I was considering only merging non-Mario characters, but then Blitzwing and Stooben suggested to me that we merge all the moves.  So, yes - that is the current plan: Fireball, Cape, Mario Tornado, and Jump Punch will all be merged with Mario.  If anyone would rather this not be the case, please speak up. {{User|Stumpers}}
 
===''New Super Mario Bros.'' Level Articles===
Looking through the site, I noticed we have some articles on each level of ''[[New Super Mario Bros.]]''. I'm not exactly sure why. The levels of ''Super Mario Bros'', ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', ''The Lost Levels'', etcetera, are all merged with their respective world article. (Ex: World 1-1 (SMB) is non-existent because it is already in [[World 1 (SMB)]]). So here's my proposal: merge the NSMB level articles with their respective world articles, just as we have done with the aforementioned articles.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Stooben Rooben}}<br>
'''Deadline''': 17:00, October 2, 2008
 
====Merge====
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per my statement above.
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per St00by.
#{{User|The Dark Doggy 2}} - There's no back story or info or even a name for ''NSMB'' levels except that what their theme is (eg forest or snow), and who will go to ''Mario Wiki'' to find that out?
 
====Keep Separate====
#{{user|Time Q}}: What makes a level article-worthy? ''[[Super Mario World]]'' levels all get articles (which I think is good), so why not do the same for ''NSMB'', ''SMB'', etc.? The only difference here is that they don't have proper names, but most ''SMW'' level names only consist of the world name and a number as well. Levels definitely have enough content to write about in separate articles, so IMO we should allow level articles for any game.
#{{user|Bob-omb buddy}}-Per Time Q,and I have found that merging levels loses info.
 
====Comments====
'''Time Q''': I do see your point, and I actually expected someone to point this out. The reason why I didn't propose that SMW levels get merged, is because they do consist of more that solely numbers. Ex: SMB, SMB2, SMB3, TLL, YI, YIDS, NSMB, SPP, and probably a few others each have levels titled "World 1-1", or "World 2-1", etcetera. SMW does actually name their levels, albeit some of the names are less "wordy" than others. But, SMW has levels with titles like "Awesome", "Gnarly", and even "Yoshi's Island 2". While the all games have official level names (even if they are just a sequence of numbers), SMW is the only one to give their levels more original names. If we were to separate every "World 1-1", "World 1-2", "World 1-3", and so on into their own articles, we would have at least 32 disambiguation pages with the aforementioned titles. So, in this aspect, I find merging the NSMB level articles to their respective world articles makes navigation all-the-more easier. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 02:29, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
:You've got a point here, but I don't think navigation would be that much of a problem. How would having disambiguation pages make navigation more difficult? I'm still all for putting brief level summaries into their respective world articles (and linking to the actual level articles). The only thing that separates the "article-worthiness" of ''NSMB'' levels from the "article-worthiness" of ''SMW'' levels is that the former do not get names. But we have a lot of articles about things that don't have (official) names. {{user|Time Q}}
 
How is there a disambig,And dosent every one of the pages list the levels at the end of the page?{{user|Bob-omb buddy}}
 
World 1 (SMB) isn't even complete yet! Before we consider whether to carry this action out or not, shouldn't someone complete all of the incomplete world/level articles first? {{User|Pikax}}
 
==Changes==
===Wiki Appearance: Light Red===
Alright folks, I guess I did get a little too bold in giving you too many options on changing on something that has stayed constant for our 3+ years - our skin. Well, I took all things into consideration, including the Encyclopedia feedback section, and I think I came up with a winner. Hopefully. :P
 
[http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/Kimi12715/MarioWiki/mainwikiscreenshot1.png Screenshot 1], [http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/Kimi12715/MarioWiki/mainwikiscreenshot2.png Screenshot 2]
 
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/Kimi12715/MarioWiki/mainwikibanner.png http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/Kimi12715/MarioWiki/mainwikimainbg.png
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Wayoshi}} <br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, September 26 2008
 
====Switch to This Skin====
#{{User|Wayoshi}}
#{{User|Shadow Boshi}} Freaking awesome.And SM64 Mario looks better than SMW Mario. GO WAYOSHI!
#{{User|Phailure}} Don't listen to those n00bs, this is epic win.
#{{User|Arend}} Not sure about the logo, but the back is good. It just FITS a Mariosite! why? It has 8-Bit Mario's and is red, the color Mario wears.
#{{User|tanokki}} It looks a ''lot'' better especially the logo.{{fakelink|SM64|PWNS}} Now, the color is a bit messy but that can be changed in seconds so overall It's good.
#{{User|Pseudo-dino}} Awesome! But maybe tone down the background red a bit.
#{{user|shyguy27}} Per all.
#{{user|kingbowser99}} Good, but how and why do you propose to change it?
#{{user|Blue koopa}} It's good, but could be better with a different logo, like the mariowik2 one below.
#{{user|R.O.B 128}} Despite your comment on my talk page, I vote your idea. The current skin is too bland and boring as well as somewhat ugly.
#{{User|Tucayo}} Looks Better.
#{{User|Yoshikart}} Current one looks bland. I support Wayo, despite him trying to close userpedia which is the reason for my retirement. Use [[mario mini]].
#[[user:Yoshitheawesome]] Good idea. Let's shake things up a bit!
#{{User|Mr. Br Mario}} Hey, very nice skin. Much better than the old one. And I support the idea of changing the logo too. SM64 is much better than SMAS's Super Mario Bros. ALL HAIL WAYOSHI!!!
 
====Keep with the White====
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} Your first proposal had many users state that we should oppose/propose. The logo needs a major change, but IMO that one wouldn't suite it. Besides, why can't you just create a monobook.css? The white background looks fine to me. It sorta gives that "Wikipedia" style look, which makes it look proffesional. However, these are just my opinions related to the wiki. I deny this proposal.
#{{User|Storm Yoshi}} The new one looks friggin weird. TOO MUCH RED o_0 . And the Mario logo thing is just far too weird for my liking.
#{{User|RedFire Mario}} I like the way it is. The new look is rly weird and it looks horrible. Keep the old and awesome one
#{{User|Walkazo}} - The background's not bad, but not good enough to be worthwhile. It'd be a novelty for a little; but our focus should be on information, not background colour (building on what Super-Yoshi said). The logo isn't that great either: it's too faded-out, and lacks "umph".
#{{User|DarkHero Sonic the Darkness}} The background doesn't really look good enough for the wiki. I think we should have the same skin the wiki has right now and I agree with Storm Yoshi.
#{{user|Jdrowlands}} - Per Super Yoshi.
#{{user|bob-omb buddy}} - the background would get boring quickly an as for the logos,the Mario mini one is creepy,and the other one isn't colourful enough.
#{{User|Dark Lakitu 789}} Per Walkazo. Also the logo's letters should of have a out line.
#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per all! So far I still think the white background is better. And the old logo looks better than the one shown above. (It kinda of creepy any other logo ideas?)
#{{User|Stumpers}} Mario's always been a very colorful series, but the new skin is very pink rather than colorful.  I know you were looking to make it look like different varients of Mario's color red, but it ends up looking either, in the best case, faded, or in the worst case, efeminent (no offense intended wish that comment - I'm just saying that an efeminent color scheme does not fit the series: Super Princess Peach is currently the only efeminent game in the series).  The logo is also lacking, I'm really sorry to say.  I'm not sure how to improve it, really... but the previous opposer was right about the words at the very least needing outlines.  Thing is: you're trying to replicate Super Mario 64's style but it just isn't working because the letters you're using aren't stylized as they were in the SM64 logo.  Besides, don't you think the logo should reflect on the entire series, or at least on certain pivital points (ie SMB, SM64, and Galaxy)?
#{{user|Coincollector}} According to Stumpers. The background offers pink tones rather than red tones, and the edit zone, why in that color as well? Talking about the logo, not bad, but compared with the SM64 style of the title, is poor. I would rather the old logo's font style that reachs a bit of such style (although it may be inspired from the Super Mario World style)...
#{{user|Magitroopa}} OMG! It looks ugly! No offense, Wayoshi.
#{{user|Count Caterpie}} It looks like a picnic blanket, plus i like the logo we have.
#{{user|Luigi001}} Per all. Personally I like the wiki's skin the way it is. But that's me. And that logo is kinda creepy!
#{{User|Canama}} Per all. No. Just no.
#{{user|Fantastic Mr. L}}I like the background, but the head is disturbing somehow. Might as well stay with the white.
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per all. Not that I care, considering I just made a .css... Ah well. I like the monotonous white skin.
#{{user|The Great Gonzales}} - I prefer the original, myself. I like our current, more professional-looking logo better (Nothing on you, Wayoshi, of course). Plus, I think the red background is a bit obtrusive and could become distracting to readers' eyes.
#{{user|Frostyfireyoshi}} - Per all. I said: PER ALL !!!!!!!!
#{{User|Dom}} - Here goes my rant. OK, this opposal is slightly biased as I hate the colour red, but that's jsut one reason. I think white looks more proffesional and is easier on the eyes. And as for the logo - that's...that's just really scary. I'm about the 500th person to say this, but it looks kinda dinky with the text over his eyes, and his face is kind of... dumb-looking. However, I do think our current logo should be changed somehow. So, I appreciate your excellent effort at redesigning the Wiki's style, Wayoshi... but, maybe you could try a different one that more people like.
#{{User|KP Blue}} - I prefer the current skin.  It gives the site sort of a library-ish look.  Which I like, because I'm editing from a library.  Besides, we don't want to annoy the obsessive compulsive users.  Besides, the pink look makes the place look gay, no offense.
#{{User|Mario Gamer}} - Wikis are always white, the basic layout and colors are fine. I've honestly never cared for the logo since it's not very...professional looking but this new one is not any better. I think a logo contest for the site would be cool.
#{{user|Girrrtacos}} I prefer the original.
#{{User|Phoenix Rider}} - I can't imagine ever switching over to something else. This style has worked for us and makes everything appear smooth and crisp. Not to overuse the word, but it '''does''' look professional this way. The red is a bit harsh on the eyes and it looks too busy back there. In addition to that it makes the site seem kiddy. Is this really what we want our readers to see? Keep in mind how many people use Wikipedia and are accustomed to the layout there. I've always viewed our layout as Wikipedia-esque with a Mario spin. The new design just throws that all out the window and that should not be. Good job on the redesign aspect and all, Wayoshi, but the way it is now seems perfect to me.


====Comments====
====Comments====
I'm aware Mario's eyes are covered by the A & R. I could put all the text at the top and Mario at the bottom, if everyone else prefers such, but I like the hidden effect. {{User|Wayoshi}} 22:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
How is "Option 2" any different from "Oppose"? Doesn't this proposal just decide whether Bombite stays or goes? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:I admire that you are putting much effort to produce a good wiki Wayo, and I congratulate you for that. It must have taken a long time to do both, but still, per my response up above. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
:It's about standardizing it so there's something to refer to in case something like this comes up again. Both options support the new standart, the difference is whether or not visual similary qualifies as a connection [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 08:31, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
 
A somewhat recent proposal about the coverage of the ''Rhythm Heaven'' series decided that ''Rhythm Heaven'' minigames with ''WarioWare'' characters in them (including Kung Fu Ball from ''[[Rhythm Heaven Fever]]'', the debut of [[Cicada]]) should not get dedicated articles. Would this new definition overturn that decision? {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 08:33, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
That screenshot looks exactly the same as our skin but with a different logo. :| I personally don't like that logo either, Mario should be semi-transparent not black and white. {{User|Uniju :D}}
:It is not within the scope of this proposal, no [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 08:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
 
Ok, technically, I don't like this text and the logo at all (the one seen above in the Proposal), but, while looking through, I thought of a logo... yet, I doubt it'd work. {{User|Palkia47}}
[[Image:LOGOMARWIK2.png|thumb]]
My brother made an other logo. It has 9 Mario games on the background. 3 Mario 2D games, 3 Mario 3D games and 3 Mario Spin-offs. What do you think. {{User|Arend}}
 
That look better than the logo that Wayo made. (No offence.) It pwnz!! {{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}}
 
I think I will soon see that [[Mario mini]] logo ''IN MY NIGHTMARES''.
 
Arend's logo is pretty decent, although Mario looks kinda funky. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 11:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:Arend's brother's logo is very close to what I was thinking of when I wrote my comment about your logo, Wayo.  I think it's very unfair to ask you to keep coming up with ideas and to keep having them get shot down, so maybe we should make a main page talk and/or forum thread about this subject and get lots of different ideas from various users and then we can put the best ones together? {{User|Stumpers}} 14:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::Only if everyone agrees in wanting to change the skin, and too many want no change at all. {{User|Wayoshi}} 16:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Pretty much everyone wants to see a new logo, though.  Perhaps we should have a contest? {{User|Stumpers}} 16:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 
I have to agree that arend's brother's logo is far better than the one we have, and I still think a slight change in the skin colors could help. And if that doesn't work, things like (very) faded background images for the content and such would be cool. {{User|Uniju :D}}
:How about a background with the clouds from Super Mario All-Stars or something?  I dunno... something like that where we used the games' backgrounds as our background images would be pretty sweet IMO. {{User|Stumpers}}
 
::::Stumpers: I want the current logo to stay, though... D: {{User|Garlic Man}}
:::I secretly like it, too, but I wouldn't mind it being updated. ;)  I'm a sucker for the old school titles, but there's been so much more content since then. {{User|Stumpers}}
::::I think a contest would be a fantastic idea. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
:::::Per Stooby. That Icon thing of Arend's bro pwns! {{user|King Mario}}
::::Lol, that was my idea! :) I think we'd need to have a proposal as to whether the logo needs updating... something like "Either keep the old logo or have a contest to decide a new one." {{User|Stumpers}}
:::::Agreed. And if we do have a contest, I already have an idea for a logo. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
::::::Crazy! A contest sounds ftw :D {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
I like Arend's brother's logo, though I think it would look better if the red faded to yellow (instead of pink) for the lettering - {{User|Walkazo}}
:That actually gives me an idea for the contest: if we limit ourselves to "rough drafts" of sorts (ie those versions of logos for which we haven't yet received input from the community) we're going to be limiting the quality of our eventual logo.  In other words, why don't we first have a general, open-forum style logo page, where people post their logos and get ideas for improvement.  Then, the next week, we open up a new page where people would post their final versions of their logos.  We could then vote off logos as follows: after three days, top 50% make it to the second round, then the top three make it to the final round, and then only one makes it to be our logo of course.  What do you think? {{User|Stumpers}} 00:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::I was worried about "works in progress" being used (hense I commented now, instead of waiting for the actual logo-voting), and I think your solution is a brilliant way to avoid that. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:::Sounds brilliant. - {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 01:27, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks very much!  So we should start a proposal about whether or not we should replace the old logo, and if so that we should use that system? {{User|Stumpers}} 12:18, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, I suppose we should have a proposal on whether or not the logo should be changed. The options could be: Change the logo, or have a contest. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
::::::CoooOOOOOOOOooooooonteEeEeeeeeeeeeeeest! Sorry, White Stripes reference. Anyhow, good Idea. {{user|InfectedShroom}}
::::::Wouldn't the options be "Keep the old Logo" and "Get a New Logo", with the contest expalined in the proposal? Also, I think the old Logo should be included in the contest (hypothetically, if 6 people votes to keep the old one, but 10 voted for a contest, and then their votes were split so that the highest new logo had 4 votes, the ''actual'' best bet would have been the old one). - {{User|Walkazo}}
:::::Yes, sorry.  I was in a hurry.  Didn't mean to write, "Heads I win, tails you lose."  You have to keep in mind that you'd also be splitting the votes of all the people who think the logo should change if we went with your second idea.  However, I could see making the old logo an option in the contest just in case all the new logos are garbage.  What do you think? {{User|Stumpers}} 22:46, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::That's what I was sorta getting at. If more people want to keep the old logo than any one of the new designs, leaving that option out of the final decision would yield results that don't accurately reflect the will of the huddled masses. And since we want to please the most people, that would be bad. - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
Maybe if there were a possibility of using either of the two skins, I might have supported this proposal. {{User|Pikax}}
 
This is absolutely bias. There is seriously no point of letting users decide. Anyway, if it was agreed with people with the power to do this like Sysops, wouldn't they change it back if they had complaints. Personally, I perfer the red, but w/e.{{User|Purple Yoshi}}
:Wait... what?  Why shouldn't we let the users decide?  The whole point of proposals is so that our Wiki is more democratic than the rest out there.  How do we have a bias going anyway?  Against red?  Nope.  Against Wayo?  Definately not - that guy's amazing.  Against mario mini?  Well, maybe. {{User|Stumpers}} 14:48, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
::It's easier for the Sysops to get feedback now than deal with angry Users later. - {{User|Walkazo}}
 
Hey Wayo if you like that colour background so much use it on your page! {{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}}
:That would only be pleasing you. Wayoshi can do whatevr he wants on his own page. {{User|R.O.B 128}}
::I'm starting to think this is becoming too much work for too little of an outcome. Why can't users just make their own monobook.css if they aren't happy with the sites current appearance? It seems simple enough. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 18:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::I guess because not everyone is able to do the coding, and because visitors too might want to see a different skin. {{user|Time Q}}
:::Yeah. I made that point on the previous proposal I think, and those who want the proposed design can receive the code from Wayoshi, put it as their Custom Css, and it would be fine. {{User|Garlic Man}}
 
I like both of you guys' ideas, but seeing all of the opposing votes, we might as well start asking Wayo to give us the code. {{User|R.O.B 128}}
:We still might want to consider a logo contest, though... {{User|Stumpers}}
::But if you think about it, everybody could just make their own logo(or use another users'), and be happy with it; it seems compromisal(for the lack of a better word). {{User|Garlic Man}}
 
I don't have the requirements necessary to accomplish your task, but the contest would be an awesome choice. Y'know, they don't have this kinda stuff on Bulbapedia; this wiki is much better. {{User|R.O.B 128}}
:'''Time Q''': If a user has trouble making a monobook, couldn't he or she ask another Sysop/User with a monobook for help? And if they were embarrassed, they could just copy someone else's monobook coding and customize it as they see fit. '''Stumpers and R.O.B 128''': I tend to agree with Garlic Man on this issue. After thinking things through a little more, users could add their own logo to their monobook. The contest is a good idea, but alas, not everyone would be happy with the outcome; the same goes with the skin. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 20:18, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 
:I agree with Stooben's idea since I'm being neutral in this arguement. It would help ease the tention and make everyone (sorta) happy. And the wiki itself would not be affected (plus you also have to see if the back round would cause certain fonts to be illedgible) so it should also be tested. {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}}
::Following up on what I said earlier, as well as Stooben's comment, I think the overall white, neutral skin is appropriate for the default wiki; people may say it is boring, but it will not cause complaints about uneasiness on the eyes. '''Time Q''': Also, for new users, the welcome template has a link to the CSS info page, and they can refer to that. {{User|Garlic Man}}
 
Regarding logos, anyone think that a [[Mushroom]] would fit nicely? I'm no graphics artist, so I wouldn't be able to actually desgin one though. Many wikis often use a roundish logo to compliment Wikipedia, and a Mushroom only seems fitting. -- [[User: Booster|Booster]]
:That could be an adequate logo if it had "Super Mario Wiki" on it, yes. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
 
I think we're missing the point of a new logo or skin here: we want to be presentable to the users who aren't going to be hardcore and making their own skin for a minor specialty Wiki like ours (which is going to be a good 98%).  I think the consensus is that our current skin is a good way to do that, but there's a lot more discord surrounding the logo, as you know.  Our logo becomes a Wiki's "face" (at least according to the fan Wiki buffs over at Wikia).  Therefore, it's very important that we agree on that.  For example, we all think of one box art image when I say "Super Mario Galaxy." Even if a gamer was to make his own box art and insert it into the box on his personal shelf, that would not change the fact that the world thinks of the official SMG box art when they think SMG.  The current logo has been in place for years - perhaps it is time to see if it can't hold up to the work of some of the new image buffs we've gained since it was first made. {{User|Stumpers}}
:Yeah, per Stumpers, that's exactly what I meant. You can't just have a random logo and tell users to make their own. I'm referring to guests who don't ''want'' to register, just visit the wiki, yet they should have a proper logo. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with our current logo, though, only that telling users to make their own skins and not caring about a standard one is the wrong approach. {{user|Time Q}}
::A similar discussion came up the other day between the sysops on a completely different issue: we can think of very creative yet complex ways to ensure than a particular user will be able to customize his/her Wiki experience to his/her liking, but we as experienced, involved editors need to keep the casual visitors in mind.  Passing users assume things about a Wiki as we all know from being passing users.  One such thing is that our presentation is the best we can do, and we want everyone to see it.  Asking users to each make their own logo and skin is backwards: rather than ask the majority of users to create their own logos, we should choose the logo that the majority agrees on, and let the dissatisfied minority make special skins for their personal use.  I think that we have determined that the majority likes our current monobook skin, but we really have varied opinions in terms of the logo. {{User|Stumpers}}
 
This might have been covered already (haven't sifted through all the comments yet, sorry), but, Wayoshi, is it possible to just add these layouts as default skin options, premade monobooks I guess? -- {{User|Ghost Jam}}
:That's a good Idea. If we can't do that, we'll need the code from Wayoshi so that we may enter it into our personal Monobook. {{User|R.O.B 128}}


That a good idea R.O.B so the users who like Wayo design should get the code. That will maybe keep them happy <s>hopely</s> BTW So are we going to have a contest or not? <s>Please don't! Classic logos seem better but Arend's logo seems cool too. </s> {{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}}
Relatedly, though I did [[Talk:Monita#Reinstate the page|vote against Monita having a page]] a couple years ago, I have started to reconsider a bit. She's a bit of an edge case, but not having a page on her creates a gap in our otherwise full coverage for Luigi's Ghost Mansion. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:56, July 20, 2024 (EDT)


The striking is not funny. This page has no room for jokes; this is a serious issue. {{User|R.O.B 128}}
Side note, would [[wikirby:Togezo|Togezo]] also be affected by the scope of the proposal? It's currently being covered on the [[Spiny]] article as if it's the same thing, even though it only ''vaguely'' resembles a Spiny (read: it's a black ball with two Kirby feet, dot eyes and a [[Spiny Shell]] helmet), and even had the Japanese and English name for Spiny swapped at first. Even with Doc's explanation in [[Talk:King Bob-omb#Trade & Battle: Card Hero|this discussion]], I'm still unsure if Togezo was meant to be the same creature as Spiny, or anything more than a simple reference to Spiny (it honestly looks more like [[Spiky]], or even [[Bumbleprod]]). The [[zeldawiki:Spiked Beetle|Spiked Beetle]], in comparison, resembles Spiny much more, especially in the Switch version of Link's Awakening. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:09, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
:Getting back to the point &ndash; I do like Ghost Jam's idea. Is it possible that you could make something like, {{fakelink|MarioWiki:Skin 1}}, {{fakelink|MarioWiki:Skin 2}}, etcetera; then you could add them to a MediaWiki page that could create a dropbox in each user's personal preferences? Ex:
:Whether part of this proposal or not, we should absolutely stop considering Togezo to be Spiny, it's patent speculation and the enemies don't even look alike besides having spiky shells. For all we know, they could've been created entirely separately from each other and coincidentally ended up with the same spike-based names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
*Skin
:I agree with Hewer, unless any of the guides say otherwise. Either way, it should be handled by a different proposal. (Also, I don't think any of the Kirby games are considered guest appearance anyway? So it isn't related, really) [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 14:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Default (Light Blue)
::Y'all keep neglecting to bring up the "rolling into ball" bit as well as Spiny having the same black face in their prior appearances in SMB3 and SMW. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Red
:::I really don't see how that changes anything. Neither aspect is uncommon among Kirby characters. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:18, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Green
::::''Later'' Kirby characters. Remember, Spinies were introduced to ''Kirby'' in that series' second game, and those attributes didn't become "common" to that series until after it was suspiciously phased out for the remake and onward... not unlike how Capsule J was phased out for being a Twinbee clone. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:20, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Yellow
:::::I still think it's too much of a stretch based entirely on conjecture. We have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes with Kirby enemy designs over the years, we weren't there with the developers, and even if they did base it on Spiny, that doesn't mean it has to be literally the same character. And I don't see what's "suspicious" about it no longer appearing (which is yet another trait not uncommon among Kirby enemies), or why its vague Spiny resemblance would have anything to do with that fact. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:34, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Etc.
:::::(ec) Not particularly convinced we should have the Kirby enemy Togezo lumped with the Mario enemy in the Spiny article and in the gallery for the Spiny. Differences are too significant. The dark face in a sprite seems to just be a coloration quirk; they're not dark in official art and the whole rolling up into ball is just probably just a coincidence since they're both round enemies anyway. How they become a ball is so vastly different; in the original games, Spinys are balls while being thrown out; Togezo patrols areas, rolls into a ball, bounces, and spins around like a hedgehog. {{User:Mario/sig}} 14:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
*Logo
::::::Later games give Spiny the ability to roll on a whim, like ''Paper Mario'' and NSMB. And I find it too unlikely that they'd ''happen'' to share both a name and basic appearance plan with an iconic creature from their creator's parent company's primary money-maker - especially when ''Kirby Super Star'' from the same dev team as ''Kirby's Adventure'' (ie, the Sakurai-headed one rather than the other one the so-called "Dark Matter saga" games had) went all-out on Nintendo cameos. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:46, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Default (Current Logo)
:::::::''Later'' Spiny abilities (and in games with no relation to Kirby). And was Spiny really that iconic as of Kirby's Adventure, to the point that there's no way they could've made their own separate spiked-shelled enemy? At best Togezo warrants a mention in trivia or something on Spiny's page for possibly being inspired by the Mario character. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:54, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Logo 1
::::::::Any SMB1 enemy I'd count as fair game, to be frank. Granted, last I checked Sakurai was fairly open on social media so I suppose someone could ask him if it was an intentional cameo. Either way, we both know that if that ever gets a proposal itself, we'll have forgotten (conveniently or otherwise) each other's points by that point, so no point wasting our keystrokes here. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Logo 2
:::::::::Well, if we would've forgotten each other's points if it ever gets a proposal by itself, [[:Talk:Spiny#Stop considering Togezo (Kirby series enemy) to be the same as Spiny|why ''not'' strike while the iron's hot, then?]] {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:59, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Logo 3
:::::::::[https://x.com/tabekurono/status/1635628473833369607/ A friend] once asked this very question, Doc, but all we got was a curious like from the programmer of ''Gimmick!'' [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 23:00, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
**Etc.
::::::::::Gimmick ''also'' had a similar-looking enemy (in fact, it looked right in between those designs), but its only deal was flipping over when hit and having the feet function as a tiny conveyor belt. And that game was entirely 3rd party, and the enemies in that game seem to be unnamed. [https://youtu.be/O71__ki3rYw?t=263 Here it is.] [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:05, July 20, 2024 (EDT)


:Maybe that would work; and if users still weren't happy with those skins and/or logos, he or she could create her own monobook. As for guests that are just visiting the site, I believe that the current logo and skin is fine for a first glance. Then, if said user were to join, he could set his own skin/logo preferences. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA ''Zelda'' games, which themselves heavily borrow from ''Link's Awakening'' - particularly ''Four Swords Anniversary Edition'' having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
::How easy would it be for other people to create their own monobooks and could this site handle it if there were over 50 or over 5000 different monobooks? {{User|Pikax}}
:I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 12:00, July 22, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, July 23rd, 03:06 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "July 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Split Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels, GuntherBayBeee (ended July 2, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Allow colorful tables, Scrooge200 (ended July 9, 2024)
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge Golf (series) with Mario Golf (series), Hewer (ended July 15, 2024)
Reorganize Template:Galleries, JanMisali (ended July 20, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Standardize the coverage of elements from guest appearance titles

As brought up by an earlier cancelled proposal, the current coverage of The Legend of Zelda series is very inconsistent, and the worst offender is Bombite. Unlike Spiked Thwomp, Stone Elevator or Mega Thwomp, it has no direct or implied connection to the Mario franchise, but has an article anyway, solely based on its appearance.

MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest_appearances permits giving individual articles for subjects "unique to the [guest appearance] game while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise". I propose to more clearly define on MarioWiki:Coverage what elements from guest appearance titles should be given their own pages:

  1. The subject is clearly derived from or based on the Super Mario franchise, as confirmed by Nintendo. (Nintendo Land minigames, Thwomp types exclusive to The Legend of Zelda, etc.)
  2. The subject is distinct enough to justify its own article. (Cannot be merged with an existing page. BowWows or Cheep-Sheeps don't get individual articles because they're not distinct enough from their Mario counterparts)
  3. Subjects exclusive to Mario-themed stages or minigames (Chili plate, Blue check mark, etc. Monita still doesn't get her own page, despite her role in the Luigi's Ghost Mansion minigame)
  4. If the subject derived from the Mario franchise appears in a Nintendo-published or endorsed media that isn't considered guest appearance, a proposal is required before creating a page. (If Nintendo ever releases a game with a unique Mario subject that can't otherwise be considered a guest appearance title, wiki editors have an option to consider if it's worth covering anyway)

This is where Bombite comes into play:

Option 1: Similar appearance isn't enough to justify creating a new article. This option would result in the deletion of Bombite, its contents will be merged with the Zelda section of Bob-omb's article

Option 2: Similar appearance is a good justification for creating a new article for a distinct enemy. Bombite's page remains

Proposer: Axis (talk)
Deadline: July 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Axis (talk) Per proposal
  2. Hewer (talk) Connecting Bombite to Bob-omb does feel like a stretch, so yeah it doesn't need an article.
  3. JanMisali (talk) Per Hewer.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.
  5. Arend (talk) As I already stated here, Bombite being covered here with its own article is really strange, even if it does resemble Bob-omb, and the game it's from references Mario a lot. Rest of the proposed guidelines also check out, per all.
  6. 7feetunder (talk) I really have no idea why Bombites even exist when they could've just put Bob-ombs in Link's Awakening. Regardless, per proposal.
  7. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

Option 2

Oppose

Comments

How is "Option 2" any different from "Oppose"? Doesn't this proposal just decide whether Bombite stays or goes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It's about standardizing it so there's something to refer to in case something like this comes up again. Both options support the new standart, the difference is whether or not visual similary qualifies as a connection Axis (talk) 08:31, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

A somewhat recent proposal about the coverage of the Rhythm Heaven series decided that Rhythm Heaven minigames with WarioWare characters in them (including Kung Fu Ball from Rhythm Heaven Fever, the debut of Cicada) should not get dedicated articles. Would this new definition overturn that decision? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 08:33, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It is not within the scope of this proposal, no Axis (talk) 08:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Relatedly, though I did vote against Monita having a page a couple years ago, I have started to reconsider a bit. She's a bit of an edge case, but not having a page on her creates a gap in our otherwise full coverage for Luigi's Ghost Mansion. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:56, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Side note, would Togezo also be affected by the scope of the proposal? It's currently being covered on the Spiny article as if it's the same thing, even though it only vaguely resembles a Spiny (read: it's a black ball with two Kirby feet, dot eyes and a Spiny Shell helmet), and even had the Japanese and English name for Spiny swapped at first. Even with Doc's explanation in this discussion, I'm still unsure if Togezo was meant to be the same creature as Spiny, or anything more than a simple reference to Spiny (it honestly looks more like Spiky, or even Bumbleprod). The Spiked Beetle, in comparison, resembles Spiny much more, especially in the Switch version of Link's Awakening. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:09, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Whether part of this proposal or not, we should absolutely stop considering Togezo to be Spiny, it's patent speculation and the enemies don't even look alike besides having spiky shells. For all we know, they could've been created entirely separately from each other and coincidentally ended up with the same spike-based names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I agree with Hewer, unless any of the guides say otherwise. Either way, it should be handled by a different proposal. (Also, I don't think any of the Kirby games are considered guest appearance anyway? So it isn't related, really) Axis (talk) 14:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Y'all keep neglecting to bring up the "rolling into ball" bit as well as Spiny having the same black face in their prior appearances in SMB3 and SMW. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I really don't see how that changes anything. Neither aspect is uncommon among Kirby characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:18, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later Kirby characters. Remember, Spinies were introduced to Kirby in that series' second game, and those attributes didn't become "common" to that series until after it was suspiciously phased out for the remake and onward... not unlike how Capsule J was phased out for being a Twinbee clone. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
I still think it's too much of a stretch based entirely on conjecture. We have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes with Kirby enemy designs over the years, we weren't there with the developers, and even if they did base it on Spiny, that doesn't mean it has to be literally the same character. And I don't see what's "suspicious" about it no longer appearing (which is yet another trait not uncommon among Kirby enemies), or why its vague Spiny resemblance would have anything to do with that fact. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
(ec) Not particularly convinced we should have the Kirby enemy Togezo lumped with the Mario enemy in the Spiny article and in the gallery for the Spiny. Differences are too significant. The dark face in a sprite seems to just be a coloration quirk; they're not dark in official art and the whole rolling up into ball is just probably just a coincidence since they're both round enemies anyway. How they become a ball is so vastly different; in the original games, Spinys are balls while being thrown out; Togezo patrols areas, rolls into a ball, bounces, and spins around like a hedgehog. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later games give Spiny the ability to roll on a whim, like Paper Mario and NSMB. And I find it too unlikely that they'd happen to share both a name and basic appearance plan with an iconic creature from their creator's parent company's primary money-maker - especially when Kirby Super Star from the same dev team as Kirby's Adventure (ie, the Sakurai-headed one rather than the other one the so-called "Dark Matter saga" games had) went all-out on Nintendo cameos. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Later Spiny abilities (and in games with no relation to Kirby). And was Spiny really that iconic as of Kirby's Adventure, to the point that there's no way they could've made their own separate spiked-shelled enemy? At best Togezo warrants a mention in trivia or something on Spiny's page for possibly being inspired by the Mario character. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:54, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Any SMB1 enemy I'd count as fair game, to be frank. Granted, last I checked Sakurai was fairly open on social media so I suppose someone could ask him if it was an intentional cameo. Either way, we both know that if that ever gets a proposal itself, we'll have forgotten (conveniently or otherwise) each other's points by that point, so no point wasting our keystrokes here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Well, if we would've forgotten each other's points if it ever gets a proposal by itself, why not strike while the iron's hot, then? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 19:59, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
A friend once asked this very question, Doc, but all we got was a curious like from the programmer of Gimmick! LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:00, July 20, 2024 (EDT)
Gimmick also had a similar-looking enemy (in fact, it looked right in between those designs), but its only deal was flipping over when hit and having the feet function as a tiny conveyor belt. And that game was entirely 3rd party, and the enemies in that game seem to be unnamed. Here it is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA Zelda games, which themselves heavily borrow from Link's Awakening - particularly Four Swords Anniversary Edition having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. Axis (talk) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4306568"